Dear Lalvia, You may find the following of interest: The word miraculum is a Latin word. It appears in the Vulgate from the late 4th century. In the earliest Greek texts of the New Testament the word terata is used. This means "wonder", not miracle. A wonder brings about a feeling of surprise mingled with admiration, caused by something beautiful, unexpected, unfamiliar, or inexplicable. Admiring the stars at night can cause a feeling of wonder or surprise, not necessarily miracle. Watching an ant can bring about wonder. In Hebrew the word נֵס (nes) today means miracle, but its meaning in Biblical Hebrew is a symbol of victory held high for all to see. The term "supernatural" is not used till about 1520-1530. I suggest reading: The New Ambidextrous Universe: Symmetry and Asymmetry from Mirror Reflections to Superstrings by Martin Gardner, Revised Third edition, 1990 Miistermagico (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magic or sorcery is the use of rituals, symbols, actions, gestures and language with the aim of exploiting supernatural forces. Belief in and practice of magic has been present since the earliest human cultures and continues to have an important spiritual, religious, and medicinal role in many cultures today.

Introducing: Dr. Roberta Mazza https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/po......48).html

An ancient Christian magical spell or charm from the sixth century has been found in an old papyrus manuscript housed at the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England. The discoverer, Dr. Roberta Mazza, believes the Greek charm, originally unearthed in Egypt, was part of an amulet to be worn or carried as protection. The newly discovered ancient Christian magical spell reveals Egyptian influence.

An unpublished Greek papyrus from the John Rylands collection, dating to the end of the 5th beginning of the 6th century AD. The manuscript main side bears a Christian amulet divided into two sections: the first consists in citations of verses from the Psalms, the second is an abbreviated, so far unattested formula of the Eucharist prayer. The papyrus leaflet was later folded and re-used to draft a tax receipt, illegible to the naked eye, which was deciphered through the use of multi-spectral imaging technology: this has led to the discovery of the ancient provenance of the manuscript from the village of Tertembuthis, in the region of Hermopolis (al-Ashmunein). The combined application of papyrological and scientific methods (carbon dating and multispectral imaging) has implemented greatly the deciphering and interpretation of this new important text.

Introducing: Marvin Meyer See book: Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power,Edited by Marvin W. Meyer & Richard Smith Princeton University Press (March 15, 1999) This thought-provoking collection of magical texts from ancient Egypt shows the exotic rituals, esoteric healing practices, and incantatory and supernatural dimensions that flowered in early Christianity. These remarkable Christian magical texts include curses, spells of protection from "headless powers" and evil spirits, spells invoking thunderous powers, descriptions of fire baptism, and even recipes from a magical "cookbook." Virtually all the texts are by Coptic Christians, and they date from about the 1st-12th centuries of the common era, with the majority from late antiquity. By placing these rarely seen texts in historical context and discussing their significance, the authors explore the place of healing, prayer, miracles, and magic in the early Christian experience, and expand our understanding of Christianity and Gnosticism as a vital folk religion. Miistermagico (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't make this claim. I have no idea why after I reverted you with an edit summary the first time saying he didn't conduct a survey you repeated the claim, but you need to stop. Doug Weller talk 07:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he did, did you not look into the source?

A study by New Testament scholar Gary Habermas published in the peer-reviewed Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus found that:

"A second research area concerns those scholars who address the subject of the empty tomb. It has been said that the majority of contemporary researchers accepts the historicity of this event. But is there any way to be more specific? From the study mentioned above, I have compiled 23 arguments for the empty tomb and 14 considerations against it, as cited by recent critical scholars. Generally, the listings are what might be expected, dividing along theological 'party lines.' To be sure, such a large number of arguments, both pro and con, includes very specific differentiation, including some overlap.

"Of these scholars, approximately 75% favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb, while approximately 25% think that one or more arguments oppose it. Thus, while far from being unanimously held by critical scholars, it may surprise some that those who embrace the empty tomb as a historical fact still comprise a fairly strong majority." - by Gary R. Habermas

You need to stop or you will be blocked. Lalvia (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've been reverted by other editors now, I'm not going to be blocked. You are extremely new here but it might be wise when experienced editors revert you to consider that you have made an error (and I myself, with all my experience, am not completely error-prone). The only survey mentioned is a 1994 one:"After a survey of contemporary scholarly opinions regarding the more general issue of Jesus’ christology, Raymond Brown". A survey is done with people. Gary Habermas chose a number of texts to analyse. He calls it a "study", not a survey". That's quite a different thing. Habermas's article is a WP:Primary source even if by a reputable scholar, and needs to be handled with care, preferably through an independent source meeting WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 10:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please take any further discussion of this to the article talk page so that others can take part. However, it's now in the article in a more acceptable way. Doug Weller talk 10:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lalvia, I have had correspondence with Gary Habermas about a text problem in Mark 1:1. He did not answer my question. Instead, he ranted about Jesus' resurrection. He is obsessed with Jesus' resurrection. I have doubts about his rationality. Miistermagico (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Allah, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 22:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Allah. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]